the way to get more women into computing is to become fitter and more social.

This is one of the most ridiculous things I've read here. You think women base their acceptence of a job due to how "fit" and "outgoing" their co-workers are? You've got to
be kidding! Are women so shallow as to judge their work environment on the base
of their co-workers looks and personalities? NO! I don't think this occurs with
either sex. Sure, there are exceptions - but you seem to be speaking in general terms -
so this reply is reacting to that frame of mind. It's great to be in shape, but do
it for yourself - not for some other edification. What if a woman programmer likes the
sterotyped "programmer guru?" Hmmm? I know I did not start programming or being
interested in computers due to the "fitness" of my fellow students nor how "social" they
were. It was based on how much I enjoyed the work, the environment (I should say -
management style that many IT/Tech departments have...), and my co-workers - fat or thin,
quiet or outgoing - they are all respected based on their merits, not physical and social
standards (which are subjective). They know/knew their job well and did it well. That's
what counts, right? I think so.

Granted, your post may have meant well mugwumpjism - I just didn't particularly appreciate a bit of the aspects of it.

Update: I agree tadman - although I haven't run into that quite yet. Again.. historically this whole mediation may be very accurate. My experiences have been different - it's possible I've run into exceptions.

I'm at a loss as to why this is "ridiculous". If anyone,
male or female, is entering a profession which is dominated
by a certain demographic, and is not welcomed, they are
less likely to continue to pursue that as a result. This
pressure is sometimes deliberate, but often subconcious
and not especially mean-spirited. If you don't
make the effort to "fit in", whatever that entails, then
the status-quo is not going to change to include you.

You must admit, the attraction of working at a company,
or in an industry, where you are constantly agitated by
your peers, would have less of an attraction than an
alternative which would accept you more readily.

Consider how difficult it was for women to enter any
traditionally male-dominated profession, such as medicine,
law, or politics. Times are changing, but 100 years ago,
there would have been very serious backlash. It was
deliberate, to preserve the status-quo.

Whatever the circumstances today, I'm not especially
concerned about the gender balance in technology today.
If people do their part, such as keeping the environment
more professional and less like a "boys locker room",
then we all benefit. The pseudo-impersonal nature of the
Internet may actually be a factor, since gender is less
"visible" as well as being less of an issue.

I'm not talking about a grown woman entering a job. I'm talking about a young woman being turned off comp sci labs by imbalanced geeks drooling over her. These bad experiences alter the way that you think about going further with a career prospect both conciously and subconciously. And don't say that it shouldn't happen, whilst you'd be right the reality of the situation is it does happen.

It may happen and I'm sure it does happen. I'm sure it happens to men as well when entering a workforce that is historically held by women. But, I didn't find that in college. I found a comradiry (sp?) - I found people who enjoyed coding who had fun. Guys drool, Girls drool - if there is someone attractive. But, I don't think that we base our career choices on that. I've had bad experiences in life in all walks - it doesn't mean I'll base everything off of them. But, to each their own. I'll grant that you do make a point. Being a young gal - I did have fun coding and still do.

I agree with your point but I think you are addressing the wrong audience here.

Yes - young male programmers and computer labs can be pretty sleazy sex-starved places. It's called adolesence. Yes it turns off women, yes young geeks can be pretty bad examples. Is it a problem for the monks here? I don't think so.

Your advice is sound but you're addressing one possible reason out of many why there's a gender imbalance. IMO you're putting an inappropriate focus on this issue but I don't have a solution for improving the ratio either.

My advice would be - encourage where you can but don't over do it. The balance will improve over time, but I don't see any quick band aid fixes.

"The future will be better tomorrow."
... from the collected wisdom of George W Bush.

Ada Lovelace for the palindrome
Albert Einstein for having smelly feet
Alfred Nobel for his contribution to battlefield science
Burkhard Heim for providing the missing link between science and mysticism
Claude Shannnon for riding a unicycle at night at MIT
Donald Knuth for being such a great organist
Edward Teller for being the template for Dr. Strangelove
Edwin Hubble for pretending to be a pipe-smoking English gentleman
Erwin Schrödinger for cruelty to cats
Hedy Lamarr for weaponizing pianos
Hugh Everett for immortality, especially for cats
Isaac Newton for his occult studies
Kikunae Ikeda for discovering the secrets of soy sauce
Larry Wall for his website
Louis Camille Maillard for discovering why steaks taste good
Marie Curie for the shiny stuff
Nikola Tesla for the cool cars
Paul Dirac for speaking one word per hour when socializing
Richard Feynman for his bongo skills
Robert Oppenheimer for his in-depth knowledge of the Bhagavad Gita
Rusi P Taleyarkhan for Cold Fusion
Sigmund Freud for his Ménage ā trois
Theodor W Adorno for his contribution to the reception of jazz
Wilhelm Röntgen for the foundations of body scanners
Yulii Borisovich Khariton for the Tsar Bomba
Other (please explain why)